Well, you wake up one day and you find your own Church to be heterodox. What do you do? Jump ship and go to the orthodox one? Or do you try to fix the Church where you are in?

Although it isn't the primary point of discussion, I'd like to comment on converting-vs-not-converting. I can tell you that I made up my mind some years ago that if it turns out (somehow?) that I'm really Orthodox instead of Catholic, then I wouldn't leave Orthodoxy for Catholicism. But does that mean that, if I really am Catholic (which I'm almost completely sure that I am), I'm going to leave Catholicism for Orthodoxy? No, not necessarily.

This does not make sense. There is no opposition between Catholicity and Orthodox that would necessitate such a decision of one to the exclusion of the other. To be Orthodox is to be truly Catholic, in the original sense of being whole and complete. To put it another way, when I entered Orthodoxy I gave up many parts of my Roman Catholic life, but none of what is Catholic; only extraneous things that are of Rome but not of the Catholic (whole) Church. Perhaps you being a Melkite can understand the difference, in that there are those things unique to Rome that are (at least hypothetically, what with the call being made that you somehow return to your Orthodox roots) not shared by the Church as a whole.

Alright, that's fair enough I suppose. Instead of "leave Catholicism" I could say "leave that body which consists of all Christians who are in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI".

[Short reply b/c I'm going back out again, but will hopefully have time to say more this evening.]

How would it not apply? The OO and EO believe the same things about the Orthodox Church (so far as I can tell, anyway), they just believe that their particular communion is the Church, and not the other communion (but even then, there are many on both sides who believe that the EO and OO are both Orthodox).

Because it doesn't. If you are not in communion, they you are not Orthodox the way they are Orthodox. And I do not agree that the OO and EO believe in the same thing. If they did, they would be in communion. The fact that they are not, well, you know smarter theologians have thought about this more than I do and understand this more than I do. If there is really no difference, why is there no communion? It's not like both sides aren't trying.

And everything you say can be applied to the ECs as well. Many ECs believe that they are Orthodox, some Orthodox do not see much difference between EOs and ECs. At this point, the OOs are as much Orthodox as the ECs are, by my estimation. Fact is, until either of us are in communion with them, we're not as Orthodox as they are.

Because it doesn't. If you are not in communion, they you are not Orthodox the way they are Orthodox. And I do not agree that the OO and EO believe in the same thing. If they did, they would be in communion.

No, no, no. Please read again. I wrote that they believe the same things about the Orthodox Church. Not that they believe that they are both the Orthodox Church (though some individual laypersons or others do).

Quote

The fact that they are not, well, you know smarter theologians have thought about this more than I do and understand this more than I do. If there is really no difference, why is there no communion? It's not like both sides aren't trying.

Again, re-read what I wrote. I did not write that there is no difference between them.

Quote

And everything you say can be applied to the ECs as well.

As you'd like to, but obviously I'd disagree with that. But go on, if you wish. Hopefully one of those Orthodox who you'll have to listen to (the EO) will either validate or correct you. I strongly suspect the latter.

Quote

Many ECs believe that they are Orthodox, some Orthodox do not see much difference between EOs and ECs. At this point, the OOs are as much Orthodox as the ECs are, by my estimation.

Wow. This says a lot about your estimation skills. That's all I'll say.

Quote

Fact is, until either of us are in communion with them, we're not as Orthodox as they are.

You must think I was born yesterday to write as you do, thinking that you'll get me to go along with this. And for what? To validate your silly ideas of Orthodoxy while you waffle on whether or not to "'dox", as you put it, because you are so enamored of your particular UGCC bishop? Good for you and him. Those of us who have made decisions don't put much stock anyway in the opinions of those who don't, can't, or won't. It's kind of like taking weight loss advice from someone who is fatter than you. And you will never find me groveling for the approval of anyone, be he from Rome or Constantinople. That is not how we do things. Who are the Byzantines to me? Nice folk, and very close to us on many substantial issues, but that's it, barring some massively huge development in the OO-EO dialogue that I am unaware of. So when you say "until either of us are in communion with them, we're not as Orthodox as they are", who are you trying to convince -- me or yourself? Because I've already joined the Orthodox Church, even if Patriarch Bartholomew himself were to come and tell me otherwise. I would, by virtue of my baptism, be obliged to say most sincerely: Thank you for stopping by, Your Holiness, it has been an honor to receive you, but I think there's a guy on the internet calling himself "Choy" who desires your blessings even more than I.

dzheremi, I'm not here to start an argument with you. I'm just saying that you are disqualifying us from being Orthodox when you yourself belong to a Church not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox. Sure, you believe your Church is Orthodox, fair enough. We believe our Church is Orthodox too, even the RCs think they are orthodox. So we all believe we are orthodox, aren't we all? I'm pretty sure the Anglicans and Lutherans think they are orthodox too, otherwise they wouldn't stay where they are, right? So what is the qualifer really? Everyone thinks that what they believe in is the right faith. So what is the unbiased qualifer for one to be truly Orthodox? Because anyone can say, "yeah we believe in the same thing." There will always be an expert somewhere saying the same thing. So to me all these, "we are Orthodox and you are not" is just polemics, unless you have some quantifiable way to say that you are, and others are not.

I'm just saying that you are disqualifying us from being Orthodox when you yourself belong to a Church not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

And again, what does this mean? It means nothing to me, in terms of what it says about the Orthodoxy of our Church. The Chalcedonians are not our masters. They are no standard of Orthodoxy for us, as they apparently are for you. You are attempting to exploit the sad division between the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox so as to put your church on equal footing with one of us, because you know that as you currently are you cannot be acceptable to the Chalcedonians whom you apparently see as the paragon of Orthodoxy (and, yes, that apparently does put us in something of the same situation as far as concerns the Chalcedonians, but I submit to you that not all division is of the same magnitude, and there are many threads here on OC.net that will testify to the fact that the majority of the Chalcedonians, at least as far as concerns whatever quality sample that this board can be considered to be, see the OO as closer to them than any of the Romans or their compatriots). But again, since this is not how we operate, you will get no agreement from me that what you have thus far presented means that we are on equal footing with you, or any of the other things you have posted as "fact" or "in your estimation". Your estimations mean nothing, and your facts are not facts at all. Go be with your UGCC bishop. It does not have to concern us. Nobody brought up miaphysitism as a disqualifier of Orthodoxy until you ran out of justifications for your heterodoxy.

Quote

Sure, you believe your Church is Orthodox, fair enough. We believe our Church is Orthodox too, even the RCs think they are orthodox. So we all believe we are orthodox, aren't we all? I'm pretty sure the Anglicans and Lutherans think they are orthodox too, otherwise they wouldn't stay where they are, right? So what is the qualifer really? Everyone thinks that what they believe in is the right faith. So what is the unbiased qualifer for one to be truly Orthodox? Because anyone can say, "yeah we believe in the same thing." There will always be an expert somewhere saying the same thing. So to me all these, "we are Orthodox and you are not" is just polemics, unless you have some quantifiable way to say that you are, and others are not.

Ah, but it is not a matter of personal belief. It is a matter of spirituality, praxis, consistency, historicity, and many other things that cannot be quantified or qualified as indisputable evidence that we are this and you are that. Everyone can claim anything and challenge anything. This does not affect our way of being Christian, any more so than your appeal to the Chalcedonians should fill us with shame and have us begging together with you to be found acceptable to Constantinople or Moscow. Nuts to that. Again, you will never see me grovelling before anyone. Yes, we believe in our faith not any less than anyone else, but we have faith that proceeds in the unbroken chain from St. Mark to HH Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory, even as the Chalcedonians deposed our sainted Popes and set up their own Chalcedonian hierarchies (and really, I wouldn't expect them to do anything else, as they were of the Byzantine rulers of Egypt and believed as they still believe now that we were wrong in rejecting Chalcedon; in that way, neither of our communions have moved, and sadly the lines have solidified, but for what I assume are necessary reasons), and all manner of evil may have befallen us at later dates. These are all later developments which are historically verifiable (it should be obvious that the "Chalcedonians" and "non-Chalcedonians" as distinct groups did not exist until several centuries after the foundation of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and the main division, such that there is one, was then between the Greeks and the native Copts, who then split off on separate roads following Chalcedon). Later still is the establishment of your particular church, which is of absolutely no consequence to the preexisting division between the supporters and the detractors of Chalcedon (as your church did not exist in 451), but that you naturally remained on the Chalcedonian side as this is the position of your Orthodox mother church, and of your new masters at Rome.

So I find your attempt to shoe-horn Chalcedon into this discussion for blatantly self-serving reasons to be quite pathetic, if I may be honest. Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, nobody who calls themselves Orthodox with the weight of history on their side (and let's be clear, this isn't a name that we've adopted in answer to the claims of the Chalcedonians that we are not Orthodox; the name of the Church in Coptic, a language which is a cultural asset of the Church that predates not only Chalcedon but Christianity itself, is "Ti-Ekklesia en-Remnkimi en-Orthodoxos"; I don't think you need to speak Coptic to know what that means) thinks that Rome or anyone in communion with her is Orthodox.

dzheremi, I'm not here to start an argument with you. I'm just saying that you are disqualifying us from being Orthodox when you yourself belong to a Church not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox. Sure, you believe your Church is Orthodox, fair enough. We believe our Church is Orthodox too, even the RCs think they are orthodox. So we all believe we are orthodox, aren't we all? I'm pretty sure the Anglicans and Lutherans think they are orthodox too, otherwise they wouldn't stay where they are, right? So what is the qualifer really? Everyone thinks that what they believe in is the right faith. So what is the unbiased qualifer for one to be truly Orthodox? Because anyone can say, "yeah we believe in the same thing." There will always be an expert somewhere saying the same thing. So to me all these, "we are Orthodox and you are not" is just polemics, unless you have some quantifiable way to say that you are, and others are not.

Choy, can I ask you a question? I am curious as to why you want to convince an OO that you are Orthodox? I, as a Latin Catholic, believe myself to be orthodox in the true sense of the word, and I believe that as a Byzantine Catholic, you are as well. Yet, I don't desire to convince OOs and EOs of that fact. This is not a criticism of you. I am just trying to understand where your argument comes from.

Winds change direction rapidly where I am. I think the reality is sinking in that whatever challenge my Bishop has set for me is a really difficult one. I can't do everything by myself, and I don't feel anyone is really interested in anything.

I'm just saying that you are disqualifying us from being Orthodox when you yourself belong to a Church not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

And again, what does this mean? It means nothing to me, in terms of what it says about the Orthodoxy of our Church. The Chalcedonians are not our masters. They are no standard of Orthodoxy for us, as they apparently are for you. You are attempting to exploit the sad division between the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox so as to put your church on equal footing with one of us, because you know that as you currently are you cannot be acceptable to the Chalcedonians whom you apparently see as the paragon of Orthodoxy (and, yes, that apparently does put us in something of the same situation as far as concerns the Chalcedonians, but I submit to you that not all division is of the same magnitude, and there are many threads here on OC.net that will testify to the fact that the majority of the Chalcedonians, at least as far as concerns whatever quality sample that this board can be considered to be, see the OO as closer to them than any of the Romans or their compatriots). But again, since this is not how we operate, you will get no agreement from me that what you have thus far presented means that we are on equal footing with you, or any of the other things you have posted as "fact" or "in your estimation". Your estimations mean nothing, and your facts are not facts at all. Go be with your UGCC bishop. It does not have to concern us. Nobody brought up miaphysitism as a disqualifier of Orthodoxy until you ran out of justifications for your heterodoxy.

Quote

Sure, you believe your Church is Orthodox, fair enough. We believe our Church is Orthodox too, even the RCs think they are orthodox. So we all believe we are orthodox, aren't we all? I'm pretty sure the Anglicans and Lutherans think they are orthodox too, otherwise they wouldn't stay where they are, right? So what is the qualifer really? Everyone thinks that what they believe in is the right faith. So what is the unbiased qualifer for one to be truly Orthodox? Because anyone can say, "yeah we believe in the same thing." There will always be an expert somewhere saying the same thing. So to me all these, "we are Orthodox and you are not" is just polemics, unless you have some quantifiable way to say that you are, and others are not.

Ah, but it is not a matter of personal belief. It is a matter of spirituality, praxis, consistency, historicity, and many other things that cannot be quantified or qualified as indisputable evidence that we are this and you are that. Everyone can claim anything and challenge anything. This does not affect our way of being Christian, any more so than your appeal to the Chalcedonians should fill us with shame and have us begging together with you to be found acceptable to Constantinople or Moscow. Nuts to that. Again, you will never see me grovelling before anyone. Yes, we believe in our faith not any less than anyone else, but we have faith that proceeds in the unbroken chain from St. Mark to HH Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory, even as the Chalcedonians deposed our sainted Popes and set up their own Chalcedonian hierarchies (and really, I wouldn't expect them to do anything else, as they were of the Byzantine rulers of Egypt and believed as they still believe now that we were wrong in rejecting Chalcedon; in that way, neither of our communions have moved, and sadly the lines have solidified, but for what I assume are necessary reasons), and all manner of evil may have befallen us at later dates. These are all later developments which are historically verifiable (it should be obvious that the "Chalcedonians" and "non-Chalcedonians" as distinct groups did not exist until several centuries after the foundation of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and the main division, such that there is one, was then between the Greeks and the native Copts, who then split off on separate roads following Chalcedon). Later still is the establishment of your particular church, which is of absolutely no consequence to the preexisting division between the supporters and the detractors of Chalcedon (as your church did not exist in 451), but that you naturally remained on the Chalcedonian side as this is the position of your Orthodox mother church, and of your new masters at Rome.

So I find your attempt to shoe-horn Chalcedon into this discussion for blatantly self-serving reasons to be quite pathetic, if I may be honest. Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, nobody who calls themselves Orthodox with the weight of history on their side (and let's be clear, this isn't a name that we've adopted in answer to the claims of the Chalcedonians that we are not Orthodox; the name of the Church in Coptic, a language which is a cultural asset of the Church that predates not only Chalcedon but Christianity itself, is "Ti-Ekklesia en-Remnkimi en-Orthodoxos"; I don't think you need to speak Coptic to know what that means) thinks that Rome or anyone in communion with her is Orthodox.

I'm not exoploiting anything. I'm just stating the obvious facts here. You say that me or anyone in my Church has anything to say about the orthodoxy of your Church. And I completely agree with that. But why are you telling me that I am not Orthodox? Who made you the Orthodoxy authority? Why can't I tell you what is Orthodox or not but you can tell me that I am not Orthodox?

dzheremi, I'm not here to start an argument with you. I'm just saying that you are disqualifying us from being Orthodox when you yourself belong to a Church not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox. Sure, you believe your Church is Orthodox, fair enough. We believe our Church is Orthodox too, even the RCs think they are orthodox. So we all believe we are orthodox, aren't we all? I'm pretty sure the Anglicans and Lutherans think they are orthodox too, otherwise they wouldn't stay where they are, right? So what is the qualifer really? Everyone thinks that what they believe in is the right faith. So what is the unbiased qualifer for one to be truly Orthodox? Because anyone can say, "yeah we believe in the same thing." There will always be an expert somewhere saying the same thing. So to me all these, "we are Orthodox and you are not" is just polemics, unless you have some quantifiable way to say that you are, and others are not.

Choy, can I ask you a question? I am curious as to why you want to convince an OO that you are Orthodox? I, as a Latin Catholic, believe myself to be orthodox in the true sense of the word, and I believe that as a Byzantine Catholic, you are as well. Yet, I don't desire to convince OOs and EOs of that fact. This is not a criticism of you. I am just trying to understand where your argument comes from.

Why don't you ask dzheremi why does he thinks he can tell us Byzantine Catholics that we are not Orthodox? Why does he get to criticize us while we cannot give them criticism?

If you want to take "Byzantine Catholics are not Orthodox" as criticism, that's on you, but to me it is a factual statement in that there is no particular body claiming to be a part of the Orthodox Church in any fashion that you are in communion with (Melkites and their wayback machine, discussed earlier, excepted ).

But it seems weird to me that people who went out of their way to leave communion with their former Chalcedonian Orthodox churches would then get so bent out of shape when the reality of their ecclesiatical standing is pointed out to them. You're not Orthodox, and again it is because of the nature of your communion, and not anything about you as people or you yourself as an individual. If it bothers you that much, you'd think that this would be the impetus needed to actually join an Orthodox church (y'know, so that I couldn't say that anymore), but wanting to be all things to all people and being angry after you are told it can't work that way is how this has played out instead. Shame.

And nobody here ever said you can't criticize me or OO as a whole or anything like that. All I have said is that your criticism really has no bearing on anything we've talked about, so it seems like you're grasping at straws to me. If the OO were Orthodox also in the eyes of the Chalcedonians (since you have arbitrarily decided to make them masters of the ecclesiastical universe, for some reason), you still wouldn't be, and if the OO aren't Orthodox in the eyes of the Chalcedonians, you still wouldn't be. Your problem is in your submission to Rome that lies at the heart of your communion, and we "heretical" OO have never had that problem. So your criticism, while allowed, is irrelevant.

dzheremi, I'm not here to start an argument with you. I'm just saying that you are disqualifying us from being Orthodox when you yourself belong to a Church not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox. Sure, you believe your Church is Orthodox, fair enough. We believe our Church is Orthodox too, even the RCs think they are orthodox. So we all believe we are orthodox, aren't we all? I'm pretty sure the Anglicans and Lutherans think they are orthodox too, otherwise they wouldn't stay where they are, right? So what is the qualifer really? Everyone thinks that what they believe in is the right faith. So what is the unbiased qualifer for one to be truly Orthodox? Because anyone can say, "yeah we believe in the same thing." There will always be an expert somewhere saying the same thing. So to me all these, "we are Orthodox and you are not" is just polemics, unless you have some quantifiable way to say that you are, and others are not.

Choy, can I ask you a question? I am curious as to why you want to convince an OO that you are Orthodox? I, as a Latin Catholic, believe myself to be orthodox in the true sense of the word, and I believe that as a Byzantine Catholic, you are as well. Yet, I don't desire to convince OOs and EOs of that fact. This is not a criticism of you. I am just trying to understand where your argument comes from.

Why don't you ask dzheremi why does he thinks he can tell us Byzantine Catholics that we are not Orthodox? Why does he get to criticize us while we cannot give them criticism?

What I don't understand is why you care what he thinks about our communion. I know that EOs and OOs don't think we are Orthodox. That has no affect on my confidence in the Catholic Church, nor does it affect my practice of the faith. I don't need to convince them of our orthodoxy, because I already know that you and I are orthodox in our profession. (NOTE: I'm using little "o" for "orthodox" when describing the Catholic Church).

If you want to take "Byzantine Catholics are not Orthodox" as criticism, that's on you, but to me it is a factual statement in that there is no particular body claiming to be a part of the Orthodox Church in any fashion that you are in communion with (Melkites and their wayback machine, discussed earlier, excepted ).

But it seems weird to me that people who went out of their way to leave communion with their former Chalcedonian Orthodox churches would then get so bent out of shape when the reality of their ecclesiatical standing is pointed out to them. You're not Orthodox, and again it is because of the nature of your communion, and not anything about you as people or you yourself as an individual. If it bothers you that much, you'd think that this would be the impetus needed to actually join an Orthodox church (y'know, so that I couldn't say that anymore), but wanting to be all things to all people and being angry after you are told it can't work that way is how this has played out instead. Shame.

And nobody here ever said you can't criticize me or OO as a whole or anything like that. All I have said is that your criticism really has no bearing on anything we've talked about, so it seems like you're grasping at straws to me. If the OO were Orthodox also in the eyes of the Chalcedonians (since you have arbitrarily decided to make them masters of the ecclesiastical universe, for some reason), you still wouldn't be, and if the OO aren't Orthodox in the eyes of the Chalcedonians, you still wouldn't be. Your problem is in your submission to Rome that lies at the heart of your communion, and we "heretical" OO have never had that problem. So your criticism, while allowed, is irrelevant.

I respect this, not because I believe that Byzantine Catholics are not orthodox in the true sense of the word, but because you are not compromising what you honestly believe. Just as you don't believe that Catholics are fully orthodox, I don't believe that OOs and EOs are fully orthodox. If we can't be honest like this with each other, then ecumenical conversations will get us nowhere.

And I respect that in turn, for the very same reason. I see no advantage in blurring the lines between our communions, whether in favor of something I'd like to hear or not. I already know many EO would see us as worse than even those of the Roman communion (or at least that's the impression I get from listening to the recollections of people I've talked to who have been to the monastery of St. Cathrine, which belongs to the Greeks), but I can't let that bother me. They're not claiming anything different than what they have claimed ever since the split following Chalcedon was finalized (sometime after the council itself, as there were attempts at reunion), and of course we also still think they're wrong, so it's not really worth getting riled up about.

If you want to take "Byzantine Catholics are not Orthodox" as criticism, that's on you, but to me it is a factual statement in that there is no particular body claiming to be a part of the Orthodox Church in any fashion that you are in communion with (Melkites and their wayback machine, discussed earlier, excepted ).

But it seems weird to me that people who went out of their way to leave communion with their former Chalcedonian Orthodox churches would then get so bent out of shape when the reality of their ecclesiatical standing is pointed out to them. You're not Orthodox, and again it is because of the nature of your communion, and not anything about you as people or you yourself as an individual. If it bothers you that much, you'd think that this would be the impetus needed to actually join an Orthodox church (y'know, so that I couldn't say that anymore), but wanting to be all things to all people and being angry after you are told it can't work that way is how this has played out instead. Shame.

And nobody here ever said you can't criticize me or OO as a whole or anything like that. All I have said is that your criticism really has no bearing on anything we've talked about, so it seems like you're grasping at straws to me. If the OO were Orthodox also in the eyes of the Chalcedonians (since you have arbitrarily decided to make them masters of the ecclesiastical universe, for some reason), you still wouldn't be, and if the OO aren't Orthodox in the eyes of the Chalcedonians, you still wouldn't be. Your problem is in your submission to Rome that lies at the heart of your communion, and we "heretical" OO have never had that problem. So your criticism, while allowed, is irrelevant.

As I told you, I respect you and your opinion. Just don't get upset when the same criticism is hurled back at you.

I will admit, we have had our problems. But we can be pretty "Orthodox" in every sense of the word if we just put an effort into it.

there's a reason why many people (and this latin rite Catholic) rarely, if ever, post over there anymore.

Some of us are banned for life.

I was banned because there was a large thread bashing David Letterman after it was revealed that he was having sex with multiple women. All I said was that we shouldn't bash him (literally said it like that). Next thing I knew they perma-banned me. I forgot that Catholicism is rooted in judging others...

Logged

"Let the mouth also fast from disgraceful speeches and railings. For what does it profit if we abstain from fish and fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and bites the body of his neighbor. "— St. John Chrysostom

Winds change direction rapidly where I am. I think the reality is sinking in that whatever challenge my Bishop has set for me is a really difficult one. I can't do everything by myself, and I don't feel anyone is really interested in anything.

Interesting. I'm curious what you mean by challenge ... is this basically a "Here's where we are, but there's where we should be. So how can we get there?" kind of thing?

So if you sign your every post "Blessings," it seems you can mock the other person without getting any type of suspension.

This really works?

I got banned a long time ago, Think I will have to open a new account just to see if this works

Seems to be working for somebody

They will have your computer's IP address listed as banned, not just your name. You should use a different computer in a different location. Computers in the same home will often have IP addresses only a diget off from one anodther and will also trigger their alarm bell. Use a work computer if you can.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I just went there and read through some posts. You can do that without signing up. Of course you cant reply to anything.. Meh... Nothing impressive going on there. That's a big enough dose for me for another year or so.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

So if you sign your every post "Blessings," it seems you can mock the other person without getting any type of suspension.

This really works?

I got banned a long time ago, Think I will have to open a new account just to see if this works

Seems to be working for somebody

They will have your computer's IP address listed as banned, not just your name. You should use a different computer in a different location. Computers in the same home will often have IP addresses only a diget off from one anodther and will also trigger their alarm bell. Use a work computer if you can.

Yeah, the quality of conversations have dropped significantly. Notable Eastern Catholic and Orthodox posters either left or have since been banned. Not really a great place to learn stuff anymore, but if you are there for entertainment it still has some value

I wonder ... do you suppose a "The Old OCnet Crowd Will Love This!" conversation is going on somewhere else in the world/internet?

Actually, there is- right here in this very forum. Nobody knows about it, it's a super-secret ultra-private subforum, but it's where Fr Anastasios and everyone else that has been around since 2002-2004 meets together to laugh at us "newbies". All those posters whose old conversations you've seen but don't post here anymore are actually all over there.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

I wonder ... do you suppose a "The Old OCnet Crowd Will Love This!" conversation is going on somewhere else in the world/internet?

Actually, there is- right here in this very forum. Nobody knows about it, it's a super-secret ultra-private subforum, but it's where Fr Anastasios and everyone else that has been around since 2002-2004 meets together to laugh at us "newbies". All those posters whose old conversations you've seen but don't post here anymore are actually all over there.

This poster has been marked for deletion for knowing too much. Move along people, nothing to see here.

I'd like to pose a question to all of you who are not on CAF these days: Would you return if they once again had an Eastern Christianity Forum (assuming that they unbanned those of you who have been banned)?

I'd like to pose a question to all of you who are not on CAF these days: Would you return if they once again had an Eastern Christianity Forum (assuming that they unbanned those of you who have been banned)?

As a great General once said: "Nuts"

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I'd like to pose a question to all of you who are not on CAF these days: Would you return if they once again had an Eastern Christianity Forum (assuming that they unbanned those of you who have been banned)?

It would depend on the quality of the posters. Cavaradossi is great but there is no Roman knowledgable enough to oppose him.

I'd like to pose a question to all of you who are not on CAF these days: Would you return if they once again had an Eastern Christianity Forum (assuming that they unbanned those of you who have been banned)?

It would depend on the quality of the posters. Cavaradossi is great but there is no Roman knowledgable enough to oppose him.

You are inflating my ego.

There are certainly other posters there who are greater than I (like Apotheoun), I just happen to be more outspoken.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Yeah...Apotheoun, Cavaradossi, Nine_Two...there are good quality posters there, but they are outnumbered by others who want to assert Roman prerogatives over even Eastern Catholics' own devotions, as we see again most recently in arguments about how ECCs shouldn't celebrate post-schism Eastern saints, which is just silly.

Yeah...Apotheounth, Cavaradossi, Nine_Two...there are good quality posters there, but they are outnumbered by others who want to assert Roman prerogatives over even Eastern Catholics' own devotions, as we see again most recently in arguments about how ECCs shouldn't celebrate post-schism Eastern saints, which is just silly.

The actiontions of these Latins doesn't necessarily come from a bad place. They are zealous to defend the Church from modern ideas of relative truth, branch theory, etc. I know, becaue I used to be one of those Latins who refused to venerate post-schism EO saints. That being said, once they can be made to understand that it is God who makes saints, and not the Church, then there is hope that they will change their understanding of veneration of holy priests, monks, nuns, etc. outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. This does not compromise truth. It merely recognizes that we cannot limit God. These Latins also need to understand that if the Church recognizes these saints, we must as well.